Allowed

Mohankumar S/O Chandranayak v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024CRL.P/1604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the bail petition of Mohankumar, the sole accused charged with rape under IPC 376 and POCSO Act 16. The court held that since the victim has attained majority and raised no objection, the petitioner is entitled to bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on bail with a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties under conditions.

Mohankumar S/O Chandranayak Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20282 CRL.P No. 1604 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1604 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHANKUMAR, S/O CHANDRANAYAK, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT TYAVANIGE TANDA, BASAVAPATNA HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P DAROJI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BASAVAPATNA, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

SMT. ARCHANA W/O TARUN N., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMAIAHSHETTY VATARA, BEHIND GOVT HIGH SCHOOL, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU 560 091

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.M. RANGANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:20282 CRL.P No. 1604 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.148/2022 REGISTERED BY BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND SEC. 16 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, SPECIAL COURT, DAVANAGERE IN S.C.NO.230/2022.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.148 of 2022, of Basavapatna Police Station, pending in S.C.No.230/2022 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC1, Special Court, Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 (for short 'IPC') and Section 16 of POCSO Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant viz., Archana.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20282 CRL.P No. 1604 of 2024

¶23

Heard Sri.Prasanna Kumar P Daroji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶25

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶26

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

The petitioner is the sole accused who was apprehended on 13.10.2022 on the allegation that he being the relative of the victim aged 17 years, developed intimacy with her, induced her and had penetrative sexual assault. As a result, she became pregnant. The pregnancy is medically terminated. A copy of the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Code of Criminal

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:20282 CRL.P No. 1604 of 2024

¶31

Procedure, 1973 is produced before the court. The victim has categorically stated that she was in love with the petitioner since 2 years and they developed physical relationship. When she became pregnant, her mother lodged the first information. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.

¶32

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the informant has no objection to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is aged 24 years while the victim has now attained the age of majority. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶33

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:20282 CRL.P No. 1604 of 2024

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.148 of 2022, Basavapatna Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with

¶39

two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶41

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶43

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:20282 CRL.P No. 1604 of 2024

¶46

¶47

Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Mohankumar S/O Chandranayak v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohankumar S/O Chandranayak v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Abdul Salam Vs the State of Karnataka

Sangappa @ Sangamesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajesh Son of Late Boregowda Vs State by Chamarajanagar

Sri Venkatesha S K Vs State Represented by

Rashmi Ranjan Barik Vs State of Karnataka

THREE6 Incommerce Ventures Private Limited Vs Decathlon Sports India Private Limited